Statute Details
- Title: Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 2) Order 2011
- Act Code: TSFA2002-S260-2011
- Legislation Type: Subsidiary Legislation (Order)
- Authorising Act: Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Chapter 325)
- Enacting Authority: Minister for Home Affairs (exercising powers under section 7(1) of the Act)
- Commencement: 26 May 2011
- Key Provisions (from extract): Section 1 (Citation and commencement); Section 2 (Exemption)
- Status: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026
- Legislative Instrument Reference: SL 260/2011 (dated 26 May 2011)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 2) Order 2011 is a targeted exemption instrument made under Singapore’s Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Chapter 325). In plain terms, it allows specific individuals to carry out certain dealings involving a particular property interest—despite a general statutory prohibition that would otherwise apply.
At its core, the Order addresses a narrow compliance problem that can arise when the Act’s restrictions are triggered. The Act’s financing-suppression framework includes prohibitions against “dealing” with property or assets that are subject to restrictions. However, the law also recognises that rigid application may be impractical or unfair in particular circumstances. This Order therefore creates an exemption, but only for a defined activity and subject to defined conditions.
Practically, this Order concerns the sub-letting of a leasehold interest in a specific flat in Woodlands (Apartment Block 145, Woodlands Street 13, #04-893). It also addresses what happens to the proceeds of that sub-letting—requiring deposit into a designated bank account and, for one individual, controlling withdrawals and permitted use.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1: Citation and commencement. Section 1 provides the formal name of the Order and states that it comes into operation on 26 May 2011. For practitioners, this matters because exemptions under subsidiary legislation typically only become effective from the specified commencement date, and any dealings outside that window may not be covered.
Section 2: Exemption from the application of section 6 of the Act. Section 2 is the operative provision. It states that Ahmad Jalaluddin Bin Sanawi (NRIC S1237688Z) and Nor Hayati Binte Ismail (NRIC S1226372D) are exempted from the application of section 6 of the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act in respect of the sub-letting of the leasehold interest in the specified flat.
The exemption is not blanket. It is limited to a particular activity (sub-letting) and a particular asset (the leasehold interest in the identified flat). This is a common legislative technique in sanctions and terrorism-financing regimes: exemptions are narrowly tailored to reduce risk while allowing necessary, controlled transactions.
Condition: proceeds must be deposited into a designated bank account. Section 2(1) imposes a key condition: the proceeds of the sub-letting must be deposited into a bank account designated in the letter of exemption dated 26 May 2011. Although the extract does not reproduce the letter, the legal effect is clear: the exemption is conditional upon compliance with the designated account requirement.
From a legal risk perspective, this condition is critical. If proceeds are deposited into the wrong account, not deposited at all, or deposited outside the required timeframe (if the letter specifies timing), the exemption could be argued to be inoperative or breached. Practitioners should therefore treat the “letter of exemption” as an essential compliance document, not merely administrative correspondence.
Additional exemption for Nor Hayati Ismail: withdrawals and use. Section 2(2) provides that Nor Hayati Binte Ismail is further exempted from the application of section 6 of the Act in respect of:
- (a) any withdrawal from the designated bank account; and
- (b) the use of the sum withdrawn.
This is a significant expansion of the exemption’s practical scope. While section 2(1) permits sub-letting and requires deposit of proceeds, section 2(2) addresses the next stage: how the funds may be accessed and applied. In many asset-freezing or dealing-prohibition regimes, the law distinguishes between (i) generating or receiving funds and (ii) using those funds. This Order expressly permits both, but only for Nor Hayati Ismail and only under further conditions.
Condition linking the withdrawal/use exemption to the letter of exemption. Section 2(3) states that the exemption for the activity in section 2(2)(b) (use of withdrawn sums) is subject to the conditions stated in the letter of exemption referred to in section 2(1). Again, the letter is central. The legal practitioner should therefore identify and review the letter’s conditions—these may include permitted categories of expenditure, limits, or reporting requirements.
Interplay with section 6 of the Act. Although the extract does not reproduce section 6 of the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act, the structure indicates that section 6 imposes a prohibition against “dealing” with relevant property. This Order does not repeal or amend section 6; it provides an exemption from its application for the specified persons, asset, and activities. In other words, the prohibition remains generally in force, but the Order carves out a controlled exception.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This Order is structured in a short, two-section format typical of targeted exemption instruments:
- Section 1 (Citation and commencement): establishes the name and effective date.
- Section 2 (Exemption): sets out the persons exempted, the specific dealing activity permitted, the asset to which the exemption relates, and the conditions governing proceeds, withdrawals, and use.
Notably, the Order relies on an external document—the letter of exemption dated 26 May 2011—to define the designated bank account and to specify conditions governing withdrawals and use. This means the legal “text” of the exemption is partly contained in the Order and partly in the accompanying letter.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The exemption applies to two named individuals: Ahmad Jalaluddin Bin Sanawi and Nor Hayati Binte Ismail, identified by their NRIC numbers. It does not apply to other persons, even if they have similar property interests or circumstances.
In terms of asset scope, the exemption is limited to the sub-letting of the leasehold interest in a specific flat located at Apartment Block 145, Woodlands Street 13, #04-893, Singapore 730145. The exemption is therefore both person-specific and asset-specific.
For Nor Hayati Ismail, the exemption extends further to withdrawals from the designated account and the use of withdrawn sums, but the permitted use is constrained by conditions in the letter of exemption. For Ahmad Jalaluddin Bin Sanawi, the extract indicates exemption only in relation to sub-letting and the deposit of proceeds; it does not expressly extend to withdrawals or use.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Orders like this are important because they demonstrate how Singapore’s terrorism-financing legal framework balances two competing objectives: (1) preventing the financing of terrorism through strict controls on dealing with restricted property, and (2) allowing limited, practical transactions where appropriate safeguards can be implemented.
For practitioners, the key significance lies in compliance. The Order creates a lawful pathway for certain dealings that would otherwise be prohibited under section 6 of the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act. However, the exemption is conditional. If the conditions are not met—particularly the requirement to deposit proceeds into the designated bank account and the conditions governing withdrawals and use—the exemption may not protect the parties involved.
From an enforcement and risk-management standpoint, lawyers should treat the designated bank account and the letter’s conditions as “must-check” documents. In practice, this means advising clients to maintain clear records of: (i) sub-letting arrangements, (ii) receipt of proceeds, (iii) deposits into the designated account, (iv) withdrawals (for Nor Hayati Ismail), and (v) the categorisation and justification of expenditures consistent with the letter’s conditions.
Finally, the Order is a reminder that terrorism-financing restrictions can apply at the level of specific property interests and specific individuals. Even where the underlying transaction appears ordinary (such as sub-letting a residential unit), the legal consequences can be substantial. Targeted exemptions provide relief, but only within the precise boundaries set by the legislation and its accompanying administrative documents.
Related Legislation
- Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Chapter 325) — in particular, section 6 (prohibition against dealing) and section 7(1) (power to make exemptions)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 2) Order 2011 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.